Explanation: According to R. Yehudah, one may move a Shofar. Even though Melachto l'Isur, one may move it l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo, like is proven below (124b);

Rav permitted to move a cloth brush on Shabbos, but not a broom made from a date branch. This is because Melachto l'Isur;

R. Elazar says, even a date broom is permitted. What is the case? If [they argue about] l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo, would Rav forbid from a date branch?! Rav holds like Rava, who permits [moving] something that is Melachto l'Isur, l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo!

If R. Yehudah forbids [moving Davar she'Melachto l'Isur, l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo, Rav would forbid, for] Rav holds like R. Yehudah, who forbids Muktzah! (Me'iri - there are many categories of Muktzah. R. Yehudah is most stringent about Muktzah, and R. Shimon is most lenient.)

Support #1: Below (141b) regarding the question against Abaye and Rava from [taking] a shoe off the mold [around which it is shaped], it explicitly connotes that R. Yehudah permits Davar she'Melachto l'Isur for the need of Gufo u'Mkomo.

Support #2: A Beraisa below (44a) teaches that R. Yehudah permits every metal Ner, except for one that burned on Shabbos.

Distinction: However, he forbids trumpets. Since it is proper for only a few permitted uses, one is Maktzeh (diverts his mind) from using it for permitted uses;

It is like a bed designated for coins, and he placed coins on it. Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav that one may not move it, and we establish it like R. Yehudah...

And it is like a hen's nest. It connotes below (45b) that R. Yehudah forbids even l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo.

Explanation: He does not forbid Muktzah, except for Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis.

Limitation: He permits [Davar she'Melachto l'Isur] only l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo, but he agrees that from the sun to the shade is forbidden.

Source #1: A Mishnah (122b) permits taking a hammer to break nuts, and an axe to break a ring of figs. [It taught only such cases,] but from the sun to the shade is forbidden.

Assertion: [The Mishnah] is like R. Shimon, for the Seifa teaches a hand needle (used to sew garments) to remove a thorn, and in Sanhedrin (84b) we establish this like R. Shimon. (He permits even in a case that he will Vadai make a wound, for R. Shimon exempts for Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah l'Gufah, i.e. it is not done for a reason like its need in the Mishkan. In a case of pain, he permits l'Chatchilah.)

Support #1: Also below (107a), it is proven that one may pierce an abscess l'Chatchilah [just like one may remove a thorn l'Chatchilah]. We establish below (107b) [the Mishnah of] piercing an abscess like R. Shimon.

Support #2: Also below (127a), it is obvious to us that the Mishnah (122a) is like R. Shimon, for it says that R. Shimon agrees about Muktzah Machmas Chisaron Kis, for the Mishnah says "all Kelim may be taken on Shabbos, except for the great saw and the peg of the plow."

Source #2: Regarding a broom made from a date branch, the Gemara (124b) asks "rather, they discuss from the sun to the shade. Would R. Elazar permit even [a broom] of a date branch?!"

Support: If Rebbi Shimon permits from the sun to the shade, why is this difficult? Perhaps Rebbi Elazar holds like Rebbi Shimon.

Explanation: The Beraisa that forbids a Shofar and trumpet [is like R. Nechemyah]. A Beraisa (146a) teaches that even a ladle, Talis or knife may be moved only for the need of their use.

Opinion #1 (Rashi): 'Their use' is their special (intended) purpose.

Inference: Even a Kli she'Melachto l'Isur may not be used for any need, for it is special for a forbidden use, and we require that it is special for the use for which he takes it on Shabbos!

Question #1 (R. Tam): It says below (146a) that one may open (untie the rope sealing) a basket of figs or dates, but one may not unravel [the rope with a Kli] or cut it, and we establish it like R. Nechemyah;

Similarly, in Eruvin (35a) it says "here the lock is tied with a rope, and a knife is needed to cut it", and we establish it like R. Nechemyah;

Why does he forbid a knife? It is destined and special for cutting!

Question #2 (R. Shimon ha'Zaken): According to Rashi, how did Rava say below (124a) that R. Nechemyah comes to say that even a Kli she'Melachto l'Heter, it is permitted l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo, but not from the sun to the shade?

How does he permit l'Tzorech Mekomo? This is not its special use!

Poor answer (R. Tam): According to Rashi, bowls, after one ate from them, it is normal to remove them, so l'Tzorech Mekomo is always considered its special use.

Opinion #2 (R. Tam): R. Nechemyah permits only a use normally done during the week, even if it is not special for it;

Even Davar she'Melachto l'Isur is permitted, since that use is normally done on weekdays, e.g. a hammer to break nuts or an axe to break a ring of figs;

This is l'Tzorech Tashmisho that was taught, i.e. what is normal to do on weekdays. It comes to exclude only from the sun to the shade, and a use that is not normal, e.g. to use a knife to cut the rope sealing a basket of dates, or a lock tied with a rope.

Also a Shofar, it is not normal during the week to use it to give to a child water to drink.

Regarding lighting with Kelim, a Beraisa (below, 124b) teaches that we may not light with Kelim, and we establish it like R. Nechemyah.

Proof (R. Tam): Below (124b), a Mishnah teaches that all Kelim may be taken l'Tzorech and not l'Tzorech. R. Nechemyah says, they may be taken only l'Tzorech;

Rava explains in the Gemara that Davar she'Melachto l'Heter [is permitted] l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo. Davar she'Melachto l'Isur [is permitted] l'Tzorech Gufo, but not l'Tzorech Mekomo.

Why should he mention Davar she'Melachto l'Isur, since our Mishnah discusses only Melachto l'Heter?! Rather, surely he mentioned it due to R. Nechemyah. He wants to say that R. Nechemyah comes to say that even Davar she'Melachto l'Heter [is not totally permitted];

Because R. Nechemyah equates Melachto l'Heter to Melachto l'Isur, he mentioned Melachto l'Isur. R. Nechemyah permits both of them l'Tzorech Gufo, but not l'Tzorech Mekomo;

Rava [rules unlike him, and] permits both of them l'Tzorech Gufo u'Mkomo, but not from the sun to the shade.

Support: The expression "even" [a ladle, Talis or knife may be moved only for the need of its use] connotes like this.

Citation: A Beraisa (Chulin 50a, Kesuvos 76b) teaches that [if the hole in Beis ha'Kosos is] from one side, it is Kosher. From two sides, it is Tereifah.

Explanation (Rashi): In the thickness of Beis ha'Kosos (which has two walls), we can distinguish like this, but in the Masas (a different stomach), even from one side, i.e. the hole is not seen outside, it is Tereifah, for this is not sealed (by a full intact wall).

Question (R. Eliezer mi'Mitz): A Mishnah (Chulin 42a) teaches that the Masas and Beis ha'Kosos that were punctured to the outside [is Tereifah]. This implies that also in the Masas, it is Tereifah only if the hole is Mefulash (goes all the way through)!

Answer #1 (Ri): "To the outside" does not mean totally to the outside, rather, towards the outside. It excludes if they were punctured one to the other (where they touch). Then it is Kosher, like it teaches after this. The Chidush is that from one side, it is Kosher, even though one stomach wall was totally punctured;

Explanation #1: However, this that it taught "from two sides it is Tereifah" is not a Chidush.

Explanation #2: Also "from two sides it is Tereifah" is a Chidush. Even though [the Beis ha'Kosos] lies on the Masas, and one might have thought that it protects it, like a rectum that was punctured and the thighs support it, it is Kosher. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. Here, it is Tereifah.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): Also in the Masas, from one side is Kosher. Obviously it is not Tereifah, unless the hole is Mefulash. There is no logic why it should be Tereifah anywhere, unless it is Mefulash.

Implied question: Why did the Beraisa mention Beis ha'Kosos?

Answer: This teaches that from one side it is Kosher even though a full wall was punctured.

Implied question: Why do we need to know that the names Masas and Beis ha'Kosos were switched? They have the same law!

Answer: Had [Abaye] not taught [that the names were switched], one might have thought that this that was taught "a needle that was found in the thickness of Beis ha'Kosos", this is what now is called Bei Kasi (Masas of the Mishnah), and it has only one wall, and people would come to say that only in it, from one side is Kosher...

However, what is now called Masas, even from one side it is Tereifah, since one full wall was punctured. Therefore [Abaye] taught that the names were switched, and even the Masas, from one side is Kosher.

Answer #3 (Ri): We can say like Rashi explained, that in the Masas, even from one side is Tereifah, for we are concerned lest it was punctured to the outside, and healed, like a thorn that lodged in the Veshet. This is the Halachah, that we are concerned lest it healed, and we are concerned for a Safek Derusah (perhaps it was clawed by an animal with venom);

And even according to the opinion there that is not concerned for a thorn, perhaps a needle, which is thin, he is concerned for it.

Implied question: In Chulin (42a), why do we require that they were punctured to the outside?

Answer: That is when we know that it did not heal afterwards, e.g. it ate a needle in front of us, and they slaughtered it immediately. (There was no time to heal!)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is relevant to writing the wrong name of the husband's city or the wife's city.

Rebuttal (Rashba): "Bavel" is the name of the country, and not the name of the city, like it says in Kidushin (71a) "all lands are Isah (we consider the residents to have dubious lineage) compared to Eretz Yisrael, and Eretz Yisrael is Isah compared to Bavel;

Also, it says there "how far is the extent of Bavel?", and we do not find anywhere a city named Bavel!

Explanation #2: Rather, [Bavel] is a country, and we do not write the name of the country in a Get.

Explanation (Ri): "Kash" is the tails of the sheaves that remain in the field, called stubble. Teven is what is harvested with the sheave.

Support: It connotes like this below (150b). It says "granted, we find attached Kash. However, how can we find attached Teven?!" We conclude that the Teven [is not Muktzah because it is attached. Rather, it] is spoiled.

Implied question: It says in Bava Metzi'a (103a) regarding a place where the custom is to cut [grain], that one may not uproot it, for [the owner of the land] says "I want that my land Titaven (will have Teven on it)." It should have said Titakesh, for what remains in the land is called Kash, like Rashi explained!

Answer: It said so because Titaven has more connotation of fertilization.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is because [if it is not Garuf, i.e. he did not sweep out the coals], they add heat.

Rebuttal #1 (Ri): Even if it is Garuf v'Katum (he swept and put ashes on the coals), they add heat more than several matters taught in ba'Meh Tomnin (the Mishnah below, 47b, which discusses in what one may insulate food)!

Rebuttal #2: This is why Chananyah permits Shehiyah (leaving food on a fire) even when it is not swept. They forbade something that adds heat only regarding Hatmanah (insulating), but Shehiyah is permitted.

Explanation #2: When it is not swept, Rabanan of Chananyah forbid, lest he come to stoke.

Assertion (Ri): Stam hot water and a Tavshil are even if [the Tavshil] is not fully cooked, only k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai (a third or half cooked. Below (37b DH Shma), Tosfos says that Stam hot water was not fully heated.)

Source: When we establish that our Mishnah discusses returning, the Mishnah is like Chananyah, who permits Shehiyah of hot water and a Tavshil on a Kirah, even if it is not Garuf, and even if it is not fully cooked, and it is not like Rabanan.

Question: What is the reason? Perhaps our Mishnah is even like Rabanan, and our Mishnah discusses hot water and a Tavshil that were fully cooked. Rabanan agree that Shehiyah is permitted on a Kirah, even if it is not Garuf v'Katum!

Answer: Rather, surely Stam hot water and a Tavshil connotes also if it is [cooked only] k'Ma'achal Ben Drusai.

Remark: Stam hot water and a Tavshil connotes also if it is fully cooked, like is proven below (38a), regarding the contradiction in R. Meir, even though one can reject this. I will explain there, b'Ezras Hash-m.

Assertion: Even if Stam hot water and a Tavshil is not fully cooked, we must say that this that Beis Shamai forbid returning, i.e. even water that was fully heated;

Similarly according to Beis Hillel, when it is not Garuf (they forbid even when it was fully cooked), since it says in the Gemara (below, 38b) that even R. Oshaya holds that we return, and even on Shabbos, for R. Oshaya said "once... they brought a kettle of hot water for [R. Chiya], mixed a cup of wine for him, and returned the water to its place [on the Kirah, and he did not comment]."

If it is not forbidden when it is fully cooked, what is his source that we return even on Shabbos? Perhaps the water was fully heated!

Question: If Stam hot water and a Tavshil are whether it was fully cooked or not cooked, if so, Beis Shamai forbid Mitztamek v'Yafeh Lo (fully cooked food that improves through further cooking), since they forbid a fully cooked Tavshil;

If so, how do they permit hot water that was not fully heated? [Further cooking] improves it!

Answer (Ri): Surely, Beis Shamai forbid a Tavshil, for it is always Yafeh Lo, even though it was fully cooked;

However, hot water, [cooking it] is Yafeh Lo only until it is fully heated. After that, it is Ra Lo, like is proven below (38a). Beis Shamai do not forbid. There is no need to decree lest he stoke, for [even] without stoking, it will get fully heated.

Explanation: We may return even on Shabbos, like it says in the Gemara.

Support: Also "we may take" connotes that we discuss on Shabbos. If it was b'Chol (before Shabbos), there would be no need to teach that we may take!

Explanation (cont.): And according to the opinion that forbids returning, he forbids even b'Chol according to Beis Hillel when it is not Garuf, and according to Beis Shamai even if it is Garuf.

Source #1: The Gemara said "according to the opinion that we return, we return even on Shabbos." This connotes that the argument is primarily b'Chol!

Source #2 (R. Tam): It says "he may not put until he sweeps." If "he may not put" means that he may not return on Shabbos, how can he sweep or put ashes on Shabbos? It should have said [the past tense] "unless he swept or put ashes"! Rather, returning is forbidden also b'Chol.

Question: What is the limit of the Isur on Erev Shabbos? If he removed it early in the morning, obviously he may return it!

Answer #1 (Ri): From the time that he could not boil it while it is still day, it is forbidden to return.

Distinction: On Shabbos, even if it is boiling, one may not return according to the opinion that forbids;

Source: If not, what is the source that R. Oshaya holds that we may return even on Shabbos? Perhaps the kettle of hot water was boiling!

Answer #2 (Ri): We can say that also on Erev Shabbos, one may not return even if it is boiling, from the time that if it were cold, he could not boil it while it is still day.

Question (Rashba): How may one return a pot on a Kirah on Shabbos? It says in Beitzah (33a) that due to [making an] Ohel, one may not rest [the ends] of an egg [on two walls, and the middle covers the gap in between, and similarly for] a pot, a barrel or bed, from the bottom up (putting the cover after the walls are erected! Pots are placed over holes in the top of the Kirah, and tower over the interior.)

Answer (Ri): Chachamim forbade making a temporary Ohel when he makes the walls first, and then the cover;

However, here the walls of the Kirah are already made. Chachamim were not stringent to forbid putting a pot on them.

Implied question: It says in Eruvin (102a) regarding Rav Huna's rams (they needed shade during the day and air at night. Rav) told him [before Shabbos] roll up [the mat spread over them during the day], and leave a Tefach [spread]. Tomorrow (on Shabbos), he adds to a temporary Ohel;

Inference: If there was no remnant (a Tefach left spread), it is forbidden, even though the walls are already made!

Answer (Ri): There, because it resembles an Ohel more, it is forbidden even without making walls. A pot does not resemble an Ohel so much. Chachamim did not forbid unless he makes walls.